I'm in agreement with Murray that there's something creepy about having government agents look into the thought processes of someone accused of a crime.

It seems to me that a crime's a crime.

If someone steals my bicycle, then it's irrelevant whether he took it because I'm an Irish Catholic or a Jew or an African-American

I want the thief caught and I want my bike back.

Here's Murray's take:

The conviction of Ravi raises a far more troubling issue, the assault on free speech.

The American people’s free speech rights are unequivocal, the government—federal-state and local-- cannot prosecute us for engaging in unpopular, controversial or for that matter “insensitive” remarks. But the New Jersey statute that prosecutors based their indictment of Ravi is a direct assault on the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been invoked to protect the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods where Holocaust survivors live. Could there be any more insensitive act than that?

And yet the American Civil Liberties Union defended the free speech rights of the neo-Nazis at considerable cost. Some members withdraw their financial support, but to its credit the ACLU stood by its position, defending the right of everyone to voice their opinions, no matter how distasteful, disgusting or “hateful,” without fear of prosecution by the government.

On this issue alone, the statute should be declared unconstitutional because a person’s “insensitive” remarks or nonviolent actions are not ‘crimes” in the sense of violating someone’s person and property.

Read the whole thing. Murray makes some excellent points. When the police become the thought police, freedom doesn't mean much.